Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[dblack]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.

How so? Are public accommodations laws "regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Because that's all the First Amendment has to say about religious protection. Ironically, public accommodations laws to violate the First Amendment, but not in the way that you seem to think. They violate it by offering special protections for religions - which is pretty clearly "law regarding the establishment of religion".

The intent of the religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution is to keep government out of telling people which religions they can and can't practice, not to give members of officially recognized religions special privileges.

Reread the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It is very plain and first in order for a reason.

We're not talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. They prohibit, or mandate in the case of PA laws, specific acts. Are you really suggesting that the first amendment should be interpreted to allow religious people to ignore any law that conflicts with their religion?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We're not talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. They prohibit, or mandate in the case of PA laws, specific acts. ...

Whoa...

So you're NOT talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of Religion. They're talking about laws that prohibit the specific acts which define, the free exercise of Religion.

Everyone clear on that?

 

[Seawytch]

Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages? Just find a preacher who will do the job. It probably isn't that hard. Or shack up and perform your own vows privately. Stop the fighting.

Why did interracial couples insist that "all churches be the same and allow their marriages"? Why did blacks insist that the Mormon church accept them as full members? Why couldn't they just find a different church that did accept them? Why did women insist on having leadership positions in churches? Why couldn't they just start their own churches?

 

[dblack]

We're not talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. They prohibit, or mandate in the case of PA laws, specific acts. ...

Whoa...

So you're NOT talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of Religion. They're talking about laws that prohibit the specific acts which define, the free exercise of Religion.

Everyone clear on that?

You're apparently not. The religion clause of the first amendment is a protection from government persecution, not a get out of jail free card. Free exercise of a religion doesn't include the freedom to break laws that your religion doesn't agree with. If you don't buy that, let me ask you this - is a Muslim man's free exercise of religion violated by laws prohibiting wife-beating if he devoutly believes it's his religious duty to do so?

 

[paddymurphy]

" Individual Christians have been forced to participate in "gay weddings" under threat of litigation and fines." That is an absolute and complete lie. The only example was a story out of Idaho that turned out to be completely made up. Some guy who claimed to be a minister owned a wedding hall that hosted all kind of weddings and other events, including civil wedding ceremonies. In a total set up, someone from an organization opposing gay marriage called the city to ask whether this hall's refusal to allow a gay marriage to use their facilities would violate an anti-discrimination ordinance. When they were correctly told that it would, this group recruited the owner and threatened to sue. The owner, however, also changed the ownership of the hall so that it was a religious, non-profit, and, therefore, specifically exempt from the anti-discrimination ordinance. The city never threatened anyone with fines or imprisonment and no one actually tried to use the hall for a gay wedding. And baking a cake in your bakery that someone will pick up and take to the wedding reception is not participating in the wedding ceremony.

 

[paddymurphy]

It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings". I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?

It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings" . And, here you are, still lying.

 

[paddymurphy]

It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings". I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?

You're asking those incapable of objective thought to find truth, which can only be accessed through objective reason.

..lol... good point. But the question remains unanswered. I'd like the LGBT faithful here to answer the question in bold above.

According to Windsor 2013 which awarded E. Windsor money based on the Finding that was avered 56 times in their 26 page Opinion that said "the power on this question of gay marriage law rests with the states and always has since our nation's founding", only 11 states had legal gay marriage according to state-enacted laws as of Windsor 2013's publication.

No lower court may usurp SCOTUS's finding from underneath on a specific Finding of law. Therefore, the only states where gay marriage is legal is in those states who themselves enacted it by due process. I think that number hovers around 15 in present time. That means 35 states do not have legal gay marriage; and never have. Lower federal circuit judges aren't allowed to "make up the law on the fly" in defiance of SCOTUS.

Have someone explain to you the difference between a state's power to legislate on a topic and the requirement that when they do, they not violate the constitutional requirements that they not deny equal protection of the law to any particular group when doing so or they not deny to anyone the substantive due process that guarantees them the liberty to make important decisions about their lives from from government intrusion. Saying the states have the power to regulate marriage is stating the obvious and something that no one disputes. They have the power to do many things. They don't have the power, however, to do any of those things in a way that violates the Constitution.

 

[paddymurphy]

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.

What is a church then mdk? Define it for me.

The law already defines what is a church ...

OH! That's great. Please cite the legal definition of the Church.

Like - Click this link to Add this page to your bookmarks Share - Click this link to Share this page through email or social media Print - Click this link to Print this page

"Churches" Defined
The term church is found, but not specifically defined, in the Internal Revenue Code. With the exception of the special rules for church audits, the use of the term church also includes conventions and associations of churches as well as integrated auxiliaries of a church.

Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:

• Distinct legal existence
• Recognized creed and form of worship
• Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
• Formal code of doctrine and discipline
• Distinct religious history
• Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
• Organization of ordained ministers
• Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
• Literature of its own
• Established places of worship
• Regular congregations
• Regular religious services
• Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
• Schools for the preparation of its members

The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes.

 

[paddymurphy]

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.

What is a church then mdk? Define it for me.

The law already defines what is a church ...

Please cite the legal definition of the Church.

Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence. Define the word "church" legally. Now.

Or shall I do it for you? Church: A congregation of individual worshippers.

Like - Click this link to Add this page to your bookmarks Share - Click this link to Share this page through email or social media Print - Click this link to Print this page

"Churches" Defined
The term church is found, but not specifically defined, in the Internal Revenue Code. With the exception of the special rules for church audits, the use of the term church also includes conventions and associations of churches as well as integrated auxiliaries of a church.

Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:

• Distinct legal existence
• Recognized creed and form of worship
• Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
• Formal code of doctrine and discipline
• Distinct religious history
• Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
• Organization of ordained ministers
• Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
• Literature of its own
• Established places of worship
• Regular congregations
• Regular religious services
• Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
• Schools for the preparation of its members

The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes.

 

[Ernie S.]

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.

How so? Are public accommodations laws "regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Because that's all the First Amendment has to say about religious protection. Ironically, public accommodations laws to violate the First Amendment, but not in the way that you seem to think. They violate it by offering special protections for religions - which is pretty clearly "law regarding the establishment of religion".

The intent of the religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution is to keep government out of telling people which religions they can and can't practice, not to give members of officially recognized religions special privileges.

Reread the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It is very plain and first in order for a reason.

We're not talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. They prohibit, or mandate in the case of PA laws, specific acts. Are you really suggesting that the first amendment should be interpreted to allow religious people to ignore any law that conflicts with their religion?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that no law that hinders my right to practice my religion how I choose can pass Constitutional muster.
Now, if I decided to start a religion that demanded its adherents sacrifice virgins, you have a point, but forcing a church to marry gays?

No one is harmed. The couple may have to find another church or a justice of the peace.
Forcing a church to perform a rite that violates their values and beliefs does them harm.

 

[dblack]

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.

How so? Are public accommodations laws "regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Because that's all the First Amendment has to say about religious protection. Ironically, public accommodations laws to violate the First Amendment, but not in the way that you seem to think. They violate it by offering special protections for religions - which is pretty clearly "law regarding the establishment of religion".

The intent of the religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution is to keep government out of telling people which religions they can and can't practice, not to give members of officially recognized religions special privileges.

Reread the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It is very plain and first in order for a reason.

We're not talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. They prohibit, or mandate in the case of PA laws, specific acts. Are you really suggesting that the first amendment should be interpreted to allow religious people to ignore any law that conflicts with their religion?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that no law that hinders my right to practice my religion how I choose can pass Constitutional muster.
Now, if I decided to start a religion that demanded its adherents sacrifice virgins, you have a point, but forcing a church to marry gays?

No one is harmed. The couple may have to find another church or a justice of the peace.
Forcing a church to perform a rite that violates their values and beliefs does them harm.

Agreed. You won't get any argument from me that PA laws are wrong. But the question is whether religion should be grounds for an exemption. And that is a different argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Agreed. You won't get any argument from me that PA laws are wrong. But the question is whether religion should be grounds for an exemption. And that is a different argument.

Let's see... 1st Amendment vs local PA laws. Which will win? That's like pitting Nicolai Valuev against Pippy Longstockings. I think I know where I'll put my money.

 

[Ernie S.]

Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.

How so? Are public accommodations laws "regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Because that's all the First Amendment has to say about religious protection. Ironically, public accommodations laws to violate the First Amendment, but not in the way that you seem to think. They violate it by offering special protections for religions - which is pretty clearly "law regarding the establishment of religion".

The intent of the religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution is to keep government out of telling people which religions they can and can't practice, not to give members of officially recognized religions special privileges.

Reread the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It is very plain and first in order for a reason.

We're not talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. They prohibit, or mandate in the case of PA laws, specific acts. Are you really suggesting that the first amendment should be interpreted to allow religious people to ignore any law that conflicts with their religion?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that no law that hinders my right to practice my religion how I choose can pass Constitutional muster.
Now, if I decided to start a religion that demanded its adherents sacrifice virgins, you have a point, but forcing a church to marry gays?

No one is harmed. The couple may have to find another church or a justice of the peace.
Forcing a church to perform a rite that violates their values and beliefs does them harm.

Agreed. You won't get any argument from me that PA laws are wrong. But the question is whether religion should be grounds for an exemption. And that is a different argument.

There is no argument until the 1st Amendment is repealed.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no argument until the 1st Amendment is repealed.

Yeah "until"...give 'em enough time. A cult always guts the core of its opposition and then replaces it with their own Constitution...

 

[Skylar]

There is no argument until the 1st Amendment is repealed.

Yeah "until"...give 'em enough time. A cult always guts the core of its opposition and then replaces it with their own Constitution...

Which might make some sense...if LGBT were a 'cult'. Or a 'religion'. Or any of the other nonsense you've made up.

Alas, its not.

 

[Silhouette]

Which might make some sense...if LGBT were a 'cult'. Or a 'religion'. Or any of the other nonsense you've made up.

Alas, its not.

You've read the OP of this thread I trust? A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which might make some sense...if LGBT were a 'cult'. Or a 'religion'. Or any of the other nonsense you've made up.

Alas, its not.

You've read the OP of this thread I trust? A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yes, it's ignorant, ridiculous, and idiotic.

 

[Silhouette]

You've read the OP of this thread I trust? A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yes, it's ignorant, ridiculous, and idiotic.

You're calling the leader of the Northwest Chapter of LGBT "ignorant, ridiculous and idiotic"? She's a lesbian. Think carefully before you hurl insults at her..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“This presents a problem.”

Ignorant, ridiculous, and idiotic.

 

[Skylar]

You've read the OP of this thread I trust? A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yes, it's ignorant, ridiculous, and idiotic.

You're calling the leader of the Northwest Chapter of LGBT "ignorant, ridiculous and idiotic"? She's a lesbian. Think carefully before you hurl insults at her..

You're still quoting yourself as a legal authority? Sil....your imaginary 'static status' bullshit has nothing to do with the law. No LGBT person has to establish your imaginary status. Nor do anything you insist they must do.

As none of the categories you insist are in the 14th amendment are even mentioned. Nor has the Supreme Court ever found that protection of gays is based on your imaginary 'static status' babble.

You making up a pseudo-legal 'standard' doesn't actually obligate anyone to do anything.